West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/141/2014

Sri Taraprasad Pandey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, PNB MetLife India Insurance Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.141/2014                                                         Date of disposal: 17/04/2015                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :   XXXXXXXXXXXX.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

  

 For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. D.K. Bhattacharjee,  Advocate.

 For the Defendant/O.P.S.                       : Mr. D. Maiti, Advocate.                                   

          

 Sri Taraprasad Pandey, S/o Late Bhabani Prasad Pandey, P.O. Nepura, Vill Amlagore, P.S.

 Lalgarh, Dist.Paschim Medinipur, PIN.721121, Present residing at C/o A, Palmal, D-4,

 Bidhannagar, P.O. Medinipur, Dist.  Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 The Branch Manager, PNB Met Life India Insurance Co. Ltd., Atwal’s Real Estate, MS Tower, 3^rd   

 Floor, P.O. Inda, P.S. Kharagpur, PIN.721305, Dist. Paschim Medinipur...……………Op.

         The case of the complainant Sri Taraprasad Pandey, in short, is that the complainant being a teacher of a school purchased one unit link policy Met Smart Plus from the OP on 18/01/2008.  The Policy No.1200800467341 with coverage of Rs.3,00,000/- on yearly premium Rs.30,000/- for its maturity taking place on 04/01/2055.  It is alleged that after payment of seven yearly premiums the complainant came to know from their system displaying Rs.1.5 lakhs in his credit against actual deposit Rs.2,10,000/-.  Further alleged that a partial withdrawal was allegedly taken place on 11/06/2012 out of his credit at the instance of one Manoj Kumar Pandey from Asansol Branch of the OP and a new policy was issued therefrom.  Upon this discrepancy the complainant became nervous and thereby suffering from acute depression with mental agony which led him to take admission in the hospital for treatment.  The OP considered the grievance and made adjustment with Rs.40,334/- without admissible interest.  Stating the case the complainant has come before us with the prayer for interest of Rs.20,000/- and compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs with litigation cost of Rs.500/-.  In order to prove the case certain documents submitted by the complainant which are not challenged by the OP.  The documents are Application dated 10/07/2014 of the complainant duly received by the OP alongwith premium paid certificate and other letters of the OP with summary of accounts.

Contd……………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

    

         The Op contested the case by filling written objection denying the allegation made by the complainant.  Apart from that, the complainant invested his money for commercial profit and as such the case is not maintainable before the Forum.  It is admitted by the OP that the partial withdrawal was adjusted upon cancellation of the fraudulent partial withdrawal as alleged by the complainant and thereby the complainant has no further grievance against the Opposite Party and therefore the case should be dismissed.  Some documents being the copies of Application for Life Insurance, Declaration, Letter dated 23/08/2008, Investment Portfolio, Premium Receipt,     

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1)Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?

2)Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3)Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?

4)Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute it is argued by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that one fictitious name of a person Monaj Kumar Pandey is nobody of the complainant.  But OP made withdrawal in order to cause unlawful lost to the complainant.  No document to that effect is produced by the OP.  On persuasion, the OP ultimately adjusted the deposit without interest accrued thereon during the period in question. Such unlawful act of the OP has caused tremendous trouble leading the complainant to take admission in the hospital for medical treatment.  Thus, the complainant should be compensated in terms of the prayer made in the petition of complaint by allowing the same in his favour.

           Strong objection raised by the OP through his Ld. Advocate that immediately after knowing the alleged fact of grievance made by the complainant the amount of withdrawal has been re-deposited on 31/07/2014.  So, there is no further grievance and as such the case should be dismissed.

          We have carefully considered the case of both sides.  It appears that the withdrawal was without basis behind the knowledge of the complainant.  This alleged act is admitted by expressive conduct of the OP which amounts deficiency of service on the part of the OP.  From the document of policy it is admitted that the OP will pay death benefit in the complainant being

Contd……………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

 

 insured ties during the valid period of the policy in force for the full sum assured.  Thus, the plea raised by the OP that the complainant took the policy for commercial benefit is not acceptable.

         In view of the discussion made here in the above it is held and decided that the complainant has good cause of action and thereby the same is maintainable here in this Forum.  Therefore, the complainant should get compensation for his mental sufferings due to undesired deficiency of service of the OP and interest on the amount of the withdrawal till the date of its redeposit. 

         Thus, all the issues are disposed of accordingly.             

                                     Hence,

                                               It is Ordered,    

                                                              that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

            The complainant do get compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Twenty thousand) only payable by the OP within 30 days from this date of order.

            The complainant do get further benefit of interest @ 9%  for the period from the date of withdrawal and the date of redeposit of the withdrawal amount, in default, the complainant is at liberty to move before the Forum in accordance with the provision of law.

Dictated & Corrected by me

              

         President                                 Member                                                 President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.